In full: Rowan Atkinson on free speech
Summary
TLDRThe speaker passionately advocates for the importance of free speech, ranking it second only to the basic need for sustenance. They express concern over the arrest of individuals for seemingly trivial offenses, highlighting the potential for laws to stifle dissent and create an authoritarian society. The speaker criticizes the 'new intolerance' and calls for more open dialogue, including the right to insult or offend, as a means to build societal immunity to offense and promote a robust, critical discourse.
Takeaways
- 🗣️ The speaker values free speech as the second most precious thing in life, after the necessity of food for survival.
- 🏠 The speaker expresses concern for those less privileged and more vulnerable to legal actions due to their lower public profile.
- 🚔 Examples given include arrests for seemingly trivial reasons, highlighting the potential absurdity of laws restricting free speech.
- 🎭 A connection is drawn between a past comedic sketch and current real-life scenarios, showing life imitating art in the context of free speech restrictions.
- 🚫 The speaker criticizes the use of laws to suppress free expression, especially when cases are dropped due to public ridicule rather than legal merit.
- 🤔 The speaker questions the effectiveness of laws that allow for the arrest and questioning of individuals for expressing opinions that could be seen as insulting.
- 📚 A reference to Parliament's Joint Committee on Human Rights suggests that insulting language should not be criminalized.
- 🚨 The speaker argues that the outlawing of insult can lead to the interpretation of many forms of expression as such, including criticism, ridicule, and sarcasm.
- 🌐 The speaker sees a culture of authoritarian control and new intolerance emerging from well-intentioned laws meant to contain societal obnoxious elements.
- 💡 The speaker advocates for addressing underlying issues through dialogue rather than arrests, suggesting that more exposure to offensive speech can build societal immunity to taking offense.
- 📢 The speaker supports the idea that the best response to hateful speech is not repression but more speech, echoing President Obama's stance on the matter.
- 🛑 The speaker calls for the repeal of certain laws as a small but critical step towards reversing a culture of over-sensitivity and promoting robust dialogue.
Q & A
What is the speaker's most precious belief in life?
-The speaker's most precious belief in life is the right to express oneself freely, just below the need for food in one's mouth to sustain life.
What are the speaker's concerns regarding free speech?
-The speaker's concerns are less for themselves due to their high public profile and more for those who are more vulnerable due to their lower profiles, such as individuals arrested for seemingly trivial offenses related to free speech.
Can you provide an example of a ludicrous offense mentioned in the script?
-An example of a ludicrous offense is the arrest of a man in Oxford for calling a police horse gay.
What fictional context does the speaker refer to when discussing free speech?
-The speaker refers to a show called 'Not the Nine O'Clock News' where they performed a sketch about a racist police officer arresting people for ridiculous reasons, which mirrors real-life situations.
What is the issue with the current law that the speaker criticizes?
-The issue with the current law is that it allows for the arrest and prosecution of individuals for merely insulting language or behavior, which can be broadly interpreted and lead to a chilling effect on free expression.
What does the speaker believe is the best way to increase society's resistance to insulting or offensive speech?
-The speaker believes that the best way to increase society's resistance is to allow more of such speech, building immunity to taking offense, similar to how exposure to childhood diseases builds resistance.
What is the speaker's view on the statement 'I am only intolerant of intolerance'?
-The speaker criticizes this statement as a replacement of one kind of intolerance with another, which does not represent progress and fails to address underlying prejudices and resentments.
What does the speaker suggest as the strongest weapon against hateful speech?
-The speaker suggests that the strongest weapon against hateful speech is not repression but more speech, allowing for robust dialogue that includes the right to insult or offend.
What is the 'reform section 5 campaign' mentioned by the speaker?
-The 'reform section 5 campaign' is a movement to reform or repeal section 5 of the Public Order Act, which allows for arrests based on speech that might be construed as insulting, in order to prevent the suppression of free speech.
How does the speaker describe the current culture of intolerance?
-The speaker describes the current culture of intolerance as a new but intense desire to gag uncomfortable voices of dissent, created by a society that has become extraordinarily authoritarian and controlling.
What does the speaker suggest as a priority in dealing with free speech issues?
-The speaker suggests that the priority should be to deal with the message, not the messenger, focusing on addressing the issues raised by free speech rather than suppressing the speech itself.
Outlines
🗣️ Free Speech and the Chilling Effect of Overregulation
The speaker passionately advocates for the importance of free speech, ranking it just below the basic human needs of food and shelter. They express concern for the vulnerability of those with lower public profiles who face legal repercussions for expressing themselves, citing examples such as the arrest of individuals for calling a police horse gay or labeling the Church of Scientology a cult. The speaker criticizes the law for its potential to suppress dissenting voices and create an authoritarian society, arguing that the law's effectiveness is not proven by dropped cases due to publicity but rather highlights the need for reform. They emphasize that criticism, ridicule, and alternative viewpoints should not be criminalized and that the law's interpretation can lead to a chilling effect on free expression.
🔒 The Paradox of Intolerance and the Need for Open Dialogue
This paragraph discusses the paradox of advocating intolerance of intolerance, which ultimately replaces one form of intolerance with another. The speaker argues for addressing underlying issues through open dialogue rather than legal action, likening society's resistance to offensive speech to building immunity through exposure. They support the idea that more speech, not repression, is the best response to hateful rhetoric, as stated by President Obama. The speaker calls for a repeal of certain restrictive clauses to counteract the culture of over-sensitivity and the 'outrage industry,' where self-appointed arbiters and media stoke public anger. They conclude by endorsing the reform of Section 5 of the Public Order Act, which they see as a step towards fostering a more robust and open society that can handle criticism and dissent without resorting to legal suppression.
Mindmap
Keywords
💡Free Speech
💡Insult
💡Censorship
💡Dissent
💡Public Order Act
💡Chilling Effect
💡Tolerance
💡Criticism
💡Dialogue
💡Repression
💡Section 5 Reform Campaign
Highlights
The speaker passionately believes that free expression is the second most precious thing in life, just after the need for sustenance.
Concerns about free speech are primarily for those more vulnerable due to their lower public profile.
Examples of ludicrous arrests include a man for calling a police horse gay and a teenager for calling the Church of Scientology a cult.
The speaker recalls a past show where absurd charges were made, reflecting a life imitating art scenario with current laws.
Publicity led to the dropping of cases like the gay horse incident, indicating the importance of media attention.
The Joint Committee on Human Rights suggests that insulting language should not be criminalized.
Criticism, ridicule, and sarcasm can easily be misconstrued as insults, leading to the criminalization of free speech.
The speaker criticizes the authoritarian and controlling nature of society, which stifles dissenting voices.
Intolerance of intolerance replaces one form of intolerance with another, representing no progress.
The speaker advocates for addressing underlying issues through dialogue rather than arrests.
Building immunity to taking offense is compared to dealing with childhood diseases, suggesting exposure as a form of resistance.
President Obama's quote is cited to emphasize that the best weapon against hateful speech is more speech, not repression.
The repeal of the word 'insult' in a clause is seen as a small but critical step towards a more open dialogue.
The speaker supports the reform of Section 5 of the Public Order Act to prevent the arrest of individuals for potentially offensive speech.
The 'outrage industry' is criticized for encouraging media and public anger, pressuring the police to react inappropriately.
The speaker calls for a robust society with robust dialogue, including the right to insult or offend, as a sign of a healthy democracy.
The campaign to reform Section 5 is wholeheartedly supported as a necessary step in combating a culture of over-sensitivity.
Transcripts
my starting point when it comes to the
consideration of any issue relating to
free speech is my passionate belief that
the second most precious thing in life
is the right to express yourself freely
the most precious thing in life I think
is food in your mouth now the third most
precious is a roof over your head but a
fixture for me in the number two slot is
free expression just below need to
sustain life itself that is because I
have enjoyed free expression in this
country all my professional life and
fully expected to continue to do so
personally I suspect highly unlikely to
be arrested for whatever laws exist to
contain free expression because of the
undoubtedly privileged position that is
afforded to those of a high public
profile so my concerns are less for
myself and more for those more
vulnerable because of their lower
profile like the man arrested in Oxford
for calling a police horse gay or the
teenager arrested for calling the Church
of Scientology a cult or the cafe owner
arrested for displaying passages from
the Bible on a TV screen when I heard of
some of these more ludicrous offenses
and charges I remembered that I had been
here before in a fictional context I
once did a show called not the nine
o'clock news some years ago and we did a
sketch where Griff Rhys Jones played
constable Savage
a manifestly racist police officer to
whom I as his station commander is
giving a dressing-down for arresting a
black man on a whole string of
ridiculous trumped-up and ludicrous
challenges the charges for which
comfortable savage arrested mr. Winston
cadeaux go 55 Mercer Road with these
walking on the cracks in the pavement
walking in a loud shirt in a built-up
area during the hours of darkness and
one of my favorites walking around all
over the place
he was also arrested for urinating in a
public convenience and looking at me in
a funny way who would have thought that
we would end up with a law that would
allow life to imitate art so exactly I
read somewhere a defender of the status
quo claiming that the fact that the gay
horse case was dropped after the
arrested man refused to pay the to pay
the fine and that the Scientology case
was also dropped at some point during
the court process was proof that the law
was working well ignoring the fact that
the only reason these cases were dropped
was because of the publicity that they
had attracted but police sensed the
ridicule was just around the corner and
withdrew their actions but what about
the thousands of other cases that did
not enjoy the oxygen of publicity that
weren't quite ludicrous enough to
attract media attention even for those
actions that were withdrawn people were
arrested questioned taken to court and
then released you know that is the law
working properly that is sensoria sness
of the most intimidating kind guaranteed
to have as Lord err says the chilling
effect on free expression and free
protests Parliament's Joint Committee on
Human Rights summarised as you may know
this whole issue very well by saying
while arresting a protester for using
threatening or abusive speech may
depending on the circumstances be a
proportionate response we do not think
that language or behavior that is merely
insulting should ever be criminalized in
this way the clear problem with the
outlawing of insult is the too many
things can be interpreted as such
criticism is easily construed as insult
by certain parties ridicule easily
construed as insult sarcasm unfavorable
comparison merely stating an alternative
point of view to the orthodoxy can be
interpreted as insult and because so
many things can be interpreted as insult
it is hardly surprising that so many
things have been as the examples I
talked about earlier show although the
law under discussion has been on the
statute book for over 25 years it is
indicative of a culture that has taken
hold of the programs of successive
governments that were the reasonable and
well-intentioned ambition to contain
obnoxious elements in society has
created a society of an extraordinarily
authoritarian and controlling nature
that is what you might call the new
intolerance a new but intense desire to
gag uncomfortable voices of dissent I am
NOT intolerant say many people say many
softly spoken highly educated and
liberal minded people
I am only intolerant of intolerance and
people tend to not sagely and some yes
wise words wise words and yet if you
think about this supposedly inarguable
statement for longer than 5 seconds you
realize that all it is advocating is the
replacement of one kind of intolerance
with another which to me doesn't
represent any kind of progress at all
underlying prejudices and justices or
resentments are not addressed by
arresting people they are addressed by
the issues being aired argued and dealt
with preferably outside the legal
process for me the best way to increase
society's resistance to insulting or
offensive speech is to allow a lot more
of it as with childhood diseases you can
better resist those germs to which you
have been exposed we need to build our
immunity to taking offence
so that we can deal with the issue that
perfectly justified criticism can raise
our priority should be to deal with the
message not the messenger as President
Obama said in an address to the United
Nations only a month or so ago laudable
efforts
to restrict speech can become a tool to
silence critics or oppress minorities
the strongest weapon against hateful
speech is not repression it is more
speech and that's the essence of my
thesis more speech if we want a robust
society we need more robust dialogue and
that must include the right to insult or
to offend and as even if as Lord deer
says you know the freedom to be
inoffensive
is no freedom at all the repeal of this
word in this clause will be only a small
step but it will I hope be a critical
one in what should be a longer-term
project to pause and slowly rewind a
creeping culture of sensoria sness it is
a small skirmish in the battle in my
opinion to deal with what sir salman
rushdie refers to as the outrage
industry self-appointed arbiters of the
public good
encouraging media stoke and rage to
which the police feel under terrible
pressure to react a newspaper rings up
Scotland Yard someone has said something
slightly insulting on Twitter about
someone who we think a national treasure
what are you going to do about and the
police panic and they Scrabble around
and then grasp the most inappropriate
lifeline of all section five of the
Public Order Act that thing where you
arrest anybody for saying anything that
might be construed by anyone else as
insulting you know they don't seem to
need a real victim they need no need to
make the judgement that somebody could
have been offended if they had heard or
read what has been said the most
ludicrous degree of latitude the storms
that surround Twitter and Facebook
comment have raised some fascinating
issues about free speech which we
haven't really yet come to terms with
firstly but we all have to take
responsibility for what we say which is
quite a good lesson to learn but
secondly we've learned how appalling Lea
prickly and intolerance
has become of even the mildest adverse
comment the law should not be aiding and
abetting this new intolerance free
speech can only suffer if the law
prevents us from dealing with its
consequences
I offer my wholehearted support to the
reform section 5 campaign thank you very
much
[Applause]
浏览更多相关视频
Will They Arrest Me For Saying This?
James Lindsay | Woke Culture HAS NOT Gone Too Far - 6/8 | Oxford Union
Why Is FREE SPEECH Important?
Gender Equality Advocacy Video
Jordan Peterson SCHOOLS Oxford Student on Hate Speech and Leaves Room SPEECHLESS (Epic Debate)
Vivek Ramaswamy STANDS Up To Delusional Woke Woman
5.0 / 5 (0 votes)